Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2018

12896469 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/896,469 10/01/2010 Frank C. Brown III ZERO-101 9757
95450 7590 01/29/2018
NEW RIVER VALLEY INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY LAW, PC
1750 Kraft Drive
Suite 2200
BLACKSBURG, VA 24060
EXAMINER
ARAQUE JR, GERARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
MICHELE.MAYBERRY@NRVIPLAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK C. BROWN, III
Appeal 2016-001092
Application 12/896,4691
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 6—13 and 17—22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Automation Creations, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
1
Appeal 2016-001092
Application 12/896,469
THE INVENTION
Appellant states, “[T]he present invention relates to the field of
supermarket refrigeration & HVAC control.” (Spec. 12).
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A system of managing supermarket refrigeration information
systems comprising:
one or more on-site computers for receiving dynamic run-time data,
which are magnitudes of one or more sensor measurements, from and
operably connected with multiple on-site refrigeration control systems,
wherein the on-site computer has a processor and software for translating the
dynamic run-time data into a generic data structure and one or more
databases for storing the translated dynamic run-time data;
a communication network operably connecting the on-site computers
with a central server and for transmitting a copy of each database to a
corresponding central server database;
a central server having one or more databases for storing a copy of
each on-site computer database, a processor, and software for:
i) repetitively detecting, at a selected timing interval, that the on-site
database contains dynamic run-time data updates,
ii) in response to the repetitively detecting of the dynamic run-time
data updates, making a complete copy of any updated on-site database,
iii) replacing the corresponding copy on the central server with the
updated copy of the database, wherein the updated copy of the database
contains current dynamic runtime data; and
iv) in response to a user query of the updated copy of the database
on the central server, presenting the current magnitude of the sensor
measurement to the user from the updated copy of the database, without
retrieving the data individually from the on-site computer;
a second communication network operably connecting the central
server with one or more user computers and which is capable of transmitting
data therebetween.
2
Appeal 2016-001092
Application 12/896,469
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Sandelman et al. US 6,462,654 B1 Oct. 8, 2002
(“Sandelman”)
Singh et al.
(“Singh”) US 6,675,591 B2 Jan. 13,2004
The following rejections are before us for review.2
Claims 1, 2, 6—13, and 17—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1,2, 6—13, and 17—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandelman, in view of Official Notice
and further in view of Singh.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires:
ii) in response to the repetitively detecting of the dynamic run-time
data updates, making a complete copy of any updated on-site database,
iii) replacing the corresponding copy on the central server with the
updated copy of the database, wherein the updated copy of the database
contains current dynamic runtime data; and
2 Although the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) shows claims 1, 2,
6—13 and 17—22 are rejected (Final Act. 6), the claim appendix (Appeal Br.
27) shows claim 22 cancelled.
3
Appeal 2016-001092
Application 12/896,469
iv) in response to a user query of the updated copy of the database
on the central server, presenting the current magnitude of the sensor
measurement to the user from the updated copy of the database, without
retrieving the data individually from the on-site computer.
(Claim 1)
The Examiner found concerning this limitation, that Sandelman
discloses it at:
(Fig. 1; Fig. 4; Fig. 6; Col. 4-5 Lines 66 -14;
Col. 6 Lines 24 - 26; 37 - 55; Col. 7 Lines 1 -15;
Col. 10 Lines 40 - 44; Col. 11 Lines 32 - 48; Col.
12 Lines 25-41; Claim 1, 9, and 16; wherein
the central server includes a relational database
for storing a copy of each on-site computer
database, such as the current status or
reminder information for each particular
HVAC system. The central server maintains a
copy of this information and replaces the
previous status/reminder information with the
recently received status/reminder information
and performs this process at specified time
intervals. The information in the central server
is organized in a manner so that when it is
presented to the user the user will be able to
view the most recent information, as well as be
allowed to review historical information, for
each particular HVAC system. This process is
performed without having the user to access the
on-site computer, but allowing the user to
access the information stored at the central
server; (emphasis original).
4
Appeal 2016-001092
Application 12/896,469
(Final Act. 8—9). The Examiner further reasons:
However, the Examiner takes Official
Notice that it is old and well known in the art of
database management to provide a full, i.e.
complete, copy of information and storing it at a
separate location. As evidenced by the attached
NPL documents, the advantage of performing a
complete backup provides a user with a sense of
security. Specifically, performing complete
backups ensures that all of the information is self-
contained and not scattered across multiple
incremental backups and being able to recover
f[r]om a disaster, such as computer viruses,
hardware and software failures, and infrastructure
interruptions, inconsistencies, or loss of services
such as communication or network connections.
As can be seen, it would have been advantageous
to implement such a feature into the system and
method of Sandelman as a means of ensuring that
in the event of a disaster the system will be able to
recover.
(Final Act. 14).
Appellant however argues,
The data being ‘normalized’ in Sandelman
is a message to the user alerting the user that the
system is not running properly. Other passages of
Sandelman show that when a fault condition is
detected, such as when a boiler breaks down, it is
the condition itself that is reported to the
user/contractor by way of a message. That is, a
message is sent to the user alerting them that the
boiler broke down: citing Sandelman (Col[.] 12,
Lines 25-41):
5
Appeal 2016-001092
Application 12/896,469
(Appeal Br. 16).
Appellant further argues,
The Examiner characterizes Sandelman as
teaching updated status information, but infers
from these passages that the status information is
‘the current magnitude of the sensor
measurement. ’ Messages indicating fault
conditions and information about the maintenance
history of a unit, brand or model of a device,
device age, and climate/weather are not ‘the
current magnitude of the sensor measurement. ’
Thus, it cannot be said that Sandelman presents
‘the current magnitude of the sensor measurement’
‘without retrieving the data individually from the
on-site computer,’ when the current magnitude of
the sensor measurement is not stored in
Sandelman.
(Appeal Br. 22).
We agree with Appellant. Sandelman (col. 11, lines 31—39), states
A portion of the memory in relational data
base 21 is preferably used to compile data
regarding the devices being monitored over time.
Such data is sortable by any number of different
criteria, including brand of equipment, specific
models of equipment, installation date (and thus
the age of the equipment), the general local climate
in which the equipment is installed (e.g., arid,
humid, warm, rainy, etc.), local weather conditions
in a given period of time, and the like.
Thus, according to Sandelman the data in the relational database is historical
6
Appeal 2016-001092
Application 12/896,469
data which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be non-
updatable data, i.e. “the general local climate in which the equipment is
installed (e.g., arid, humid, warm, rainy, etc.).” See id. Notwithstanding,
even assuming Sandelman discloses “dynamic run-time data” in the
disclosed status messages, “okay” and/or the “fault messages” (see col. 6,11.
2—11; 24—35), Sandelman explicitly discloses that the alert signal to the
user is generated not from a central server database, but rather “[w]hen a
monitored piece of equipment detects an exception condition, it activates its
interface to the cellular phone network (emphasis added).” Sandelman, col.
5,11. 12—14. The relational database is disclosed in the context that the
“[mjodule 27 selects the users message profile from the relational database
21... [and] determines what message gets sent to whom and by which
medium.” See Id. col. 12,11. 36—39.
Furthermore, we disagree with the Examiner that a “complete backup”
meets the claimed, “in response to the repetitively detecting of the dynamic
run-time data updates, making a complete copy of any updated on-site
database, iii) replacing the corresponding copy on the central server with the
updated copy of the database, ... .” (Answer 14). This is because
Sandelman does not disclose, nor does the Examiner explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would cause the back up to occur in response to
repetitively detecting the dynamic run-time data updates. At best, a
complete back up connotes a single end of the day type procedure, versus
one which is dependent on detecting repetitive updates, which can happen
7
Appeal 2016-001092
Application 12/896,469
several times an hour.
Since claims 2, 6—13, 17—21 depend from claim 1, and since we
cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1, the rejection of these dependent
claims likewise cannot be sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6—13, 17—21 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that
claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts. First, . . . determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we
then ask, “[wjhat else is there in the claims before us?” To
answer that question, . . . consider the elements of each claim
both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the
claim’ into a patent-eligible application. [The Court] described
step two of this analysis as a search for an ‘ ‘inventive
concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
itself. ’
Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLSBankInt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72—73
(2012)).
To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at
8
Appeal 2016-001092
Application 12/896,469
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Here, the Examiner
determines that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. See Final Action
4. However, the Specification (see e.g., Spec. ]Hf 2—8), evidences that the
claims on appeal are directed to a refrigeration control system3 * * * * * 9, not an
3 The network control architecture of claim 1 standing apart from the generic
data feature requires, in pertinent part:
a. one or more on-site computers for receiving dynamic run-time data
receiving magnitudes of one or more sensor measurements from and
operably connected with,
b. multiple on-site refrigeration control systems,
c. one or more on—site databases for storing the dynamic run-time data;
d. a communication network operably connecting the on-site computers
to a central server for transmitting a copy of each on—site database to a
central server database;
e. a central server database storing a copy of each on-site computer
database,
f. a central server processor, and software,
i) repetitively detecting, at a selected timing interval, that the on-site
database contains dynamic run-time data updates,
ii) copying any updated on-site database,
iii) replacing with the updated copy of the database; and
iv) presenting the current magnitude of sensor measurements to a user
from the updated copy of the central server database, without
retrieving the data individually from the on-site computer; and
g. a second communication network operably connecting the central
9
Appeal 2016-001092
Application 12/896,469
abstract idea. Further in claim 1, the computers are “operably connected
with multiple on-site refrigeration control systems.” As indicated above,
if the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., to an
abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Thus, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 6—13, and 17—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The question is whether the claims as a whole “focus on a specific
means or method that improves the relevant technology” or are “directed to
a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic
processes and machinery.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this case, we find claim 1, as a
whole, is focused on the specific patent—eligible means of improving the
relevant technology of refrigeration control systems. Thus, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6—13, and 17—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6—13 and
17—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6—13, and
17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
server with one or more user computers.
10
Appeal 2016-001092
Application 12/896,469
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 6—13, and 17—21
is reversed.
REVERSED.
11